# DCP MIDSTREAM — Notice of Probable Violation

- **operation:** document
- **citation:** CPF 420185004
- **title:** DCP MIDSTREAM — Notice of Probable Violation
- **source type:** enforcement
- **agency:** Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- **status:** historical
- **official:** true
- **published on:** 2018-02-09
- **effective on:** Not available
- **summary:** CLOSED notice of probable violation citing 195.561(a), 195.579(c).
- **machine formats:** - **json:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185004.json
- **markdown:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185004.md
- **app url:** https://regulus.evalyn.ai/document/phmsa-enforcement-420185004
- **source url:** https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-data/case/420185004
**body:**

Notice of Probable Violation involving DCP MIDSTREAM. PHMSA's enforcement data identifies the cited regulations as 195.561(a),  195.579(c). The case was opened on 2018-02-09 and is reported as closed as of 2019-04-03. Proposed civil penalty: $44,200. Assessed civil penalty: $44,200. Open the official case record for notices, responses, orders, and the latest status.

Official case documents:

420185004_Final Order_04032019.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185004/420185004_Final%20Order_04032019.pdf

420185004_Final Order_04032019_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185004/420185004_Final%20Order_04032019_text.pdf

420185004_NOPV PCP_02092018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185004/420185004_NOPV%20PCP_02092018.pdf

420185004_NOPV PCP_02092018_text.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185004/420185004_NOPV%20PCP_02092018_text.pdf

420185004_Operator Response to Notice_03212018.pdf: https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/enforcement-documents/420185004/420185004_Operator%20Response%20to%20Notice_03212018.pdf

420185004_Final Order_04032019_text.pdf

April 3, 2019
Mr. Wouter van Kempen
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
DCP Midstream, LP
370 17th Street, Suite 2500
Denver, CO 80202
Re: CPF No. 4-2018-5004
Dear Mr. van Kempen:
Enclosed please find the Final Order issued in the above-referenced case. It makes findings of
violation and assesses a civil penalty of $44,200. This is to acknowledge receipt of payment of
the full penalty amount, by wire transfer dated March 28, 2018. This enforcement action is now
closed. Service of the Final Order by certified mail is effective upon the date of mailing, as
provided under 49 C.F.R. § 190.5.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Alan K. Mayberry
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Mary McDaniel, Director, Southwest Region, Office of Pipeline Safety, PHMSA
Mr. Brent Backes, Group Vice President and General Counsel, DCP Midstream, LP
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590
____________________________________
In the Matter of )
DCP Midstream, LP, ) CPF No. 4-2018-5004
)
)
)
Respondent. )
____________________________________)
FINAL ORDER
On multiple dates between June 25 and August 25, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 60117, a
representative of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Office
of Pipeline Safety (OPS), conducted an on-site pipeline safety inspection of the facilities and
records of DCP Midstream, LP’s (DCP or Respondent), Black Lake highly volatile liquid (HVL)
pipeline system in Texas and Louisiana. DCP is a master limited partnership owned by Phillips
66 and Enbridge, Inc., that operates more than 64,000 miles of natural gas liquid pipeline and 12
natural gas processing facilities in approximately 16 states.1
As a result of the inspection, the Director, Southwest Region, OPS (Director), issued to
Respondent, by letter dated February 9, 2018, a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil
Penalty (Notice). In accordance with 49 C.F.R. § 190.207, the Notice proposed finding that DCP
had violated 49 C.F.R. §§ 195.561(a) and 195.579(c) and proposed assessing a civil penalty of
$44,200 for the alleged violations.
DCP responded to the Notice by letter dated March 21, 2018 (Response). The company did not
contest the allegations of violation and paid the proposed civil penalty of $44,200. In accordance
with 49 C.F.R. § 190.208(a)(1), such payment authorizes the Associate Administrator to make
findings of violation and to issue this final order without further proceedings.
FINDINGS OF VIOLATION
In its Response, DCP did not contest the allegations in the Notice that it violated 49 C.F.R. Part
195, as follows:
1 DCP website, available at http://www.dcpmidstream.com/getattachment/Utility-Pages/Explore-
Footprint/DCP_Mid_Corp_Glance_Fact_Sheet_Q32016_Enbridge_Consolidation.pdf.aspx (last accessed December
11, 2018).



CPF No. 4-2018-5004
Page 2
Item 1: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.561(a), which states:
§ 195.561 When must I inspect pipe coating used for external corrosion
control?
(a) You must inspect all external pipe coating required by § 195.557 just
prior to lowering the pipe into the ditch or submerging the pipe.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.561(a) by failing to inspect the
external pipeline coating prior to lowering the pipe into the ditch. Specifically, the construction
field report for the CrossTex Lateral, which was constructed on June 24, 2013, only noted that a
pipe-inspection “jeep” was at the job site,2 but did not indicate whether the pipe had actually
been inspected prior to lowering it into the ditch. Additionally, DCP failed to follow its own
corrosion-control procedure (Procedure CORR-2160), dated April 17, 2013. Sections 3.1, 3.4,
and 3.5 of CORR-2160 require DCP representatives to inspect the pipeline coating visually and
100 percent electrically using the conductive contact with the holiday detector. Section 3.7 also
specifies that the coating inspections and repairs should be documented on DCP Form 13 –
exposed Pipeline Inspection Report or a similar form demonstrating compliance with the
procedure.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. In its Response, DCP stated that no
inspection report or other documentation was found to demonstrate that the pipeline coating had
been inspected prior to lowering the pipe into the ditch.3 Accordingly, based upon a review of
all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.561(a) by failing to inspect
the external pipeline coating prior to lowering the pipe into the ditch.
Item 2: The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c), which states:
§ 195.579 What must I do to mitigate internal corrosion?
(a) …
(c) Removing pipe. Whenever you remove pipe from a pipeline, you
must inspect the internal surface of the pipe for evidence of corrosion. If
you find internal corrosion requiring corrective action under § 195.585, you
must investigate circumferentially and longitudinally beyond the removed
pipe (by visual examination, indirect method, or both) to determine whether
additional corrosion requiring remedial action exists in the vicinity of the
removed pipe.
The Notice alleged that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c) by failing to inspect the
internal surface of pipe for evidence of corrosion when the pipe was removed from the pipeline
system. Specifically, the Notice alleged that DCP failed to provide documentation to support
that an internal inspection was performed when hot tap coupons were removed from the pipeline.
DCP made four hot taps to connect the Hull Lateral, the Ada Lateral, the CrossTex Lateral, and
2
Pipelines are coated and/or wrapped with special materials to prevent corrosion. Coating integrity is confirmed
through detection of bare spots with special detectors known as “jeeps.”
3 Response, at 1.



CPF No. 4-2018-5004
Page 3
the Goldonna Lateral, which were all connected to meter stations. The four meter station
receipts were installed in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Furthermore, according to DCP Corrosion and
Compliance representatives, inspection reports were not available since the internal surface of
the pipe had not been inspected for evidence of corrosion during these projects. DCP also failed
to follow its corrosion-control procedure (Procedure CORR-3010). Sections 3, 4, and 8 of
CORR-3010 indicate that when the pipe is cut, including hot taps coupons, the internal surface
must be inspected.
Respondent did not contest this allegation of violation. In its Response, DCP stated that no
inspection reports for the hot taps conducted in 2013, 2014, and 2015, were found for the Hull
Lateral, the Ada Lateral, the CrossTex Lateral, and the Goldonna Lateral.4 Accordingly, based
upon a review of all of the evidence, I find that Respondent violated 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c) by
failing to inspect the internal surface of pipe for evidence of corrosion when the pipe was
removed from the pipeline system.
These findings of violation will be considered prior offenses in any subsequent enforcement
action taken against Respondent.
ASSESSMENT OF PENALTY
Under 49 U.S.C. § 60122, Respondent is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed
$200,000 per violation for each day of the violation, up to a maximum of $2,000,000 for any
related series of violations.5 In determining the amount of a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C.
§ 60122 and 49 C.F.R. § 190.225, I must consider the following criteria: the nature,
circumstances, and gravity of the violation, including adverse impact on the environment; the
degree of Respondent’s culpability; the history of Respondent’s prior offenses; any effect that
the penalty may have on its ability to continue doing business; and the good faith of Respondent
in attempting to comply with the pipeline safety regulations. In addition, I may consider the
economic benefit gained from the violation without any reduction because of subsequent
damages, and such other matters as justice may require. The Notice proposed a total civil
penalty of $44,200 for the violations cited above.
Item 1: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $21,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.561(a), for failing to inspect the external pipeline coating prior to lowering the pipe into
the ditch. DCP neither contested the allegation nor presented any evidence or argument
justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed
the record and considered the assessment criteria, I assess Respondent a civil penalty of $21,600
for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.561(a).
Item 2: The Notice proposed a civil penalty of $22,600 for Respondent’s violation of 49 C.F.R.
§ 195.579(c), for failing to failing to inspect the internal surface of pipe for evidence of corrosion
4 Response, at 1.
5 These amounts are adjusted annually for inflation. See, 49 C.F.R. § 190.223; Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts,
83 Fed. Reg. 60732, 60744 (Nov. 27, 2018).



CPF No. 4-2018-5004
Page 4
when pipe was removed from the pipeline system. DCP neither contested the allegation nor
presented any evidence or argument justifying a reduction in or elimination of the proposed
penalty. Accordingly, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria, I
assess Respondent a civil penalty of $22,600 for violation of 49 C.F.R. § 195.579(c).
In summary, having reviewed the record and considered the assessment criteria for each of the
Items cited above, I assess Respondent a total civil penalty of $44,200, which was paid in full by
wire transfer on March 23, 2018.
The terms and conditions of this Final Order are effective upon service in accordance with 49
C.F.R. § 190.5.
April 3, 2019
___________________________________ __________________________
Alan K. Mayberry Date Issued
Associate Administrator
for Pipeline Safety
- **truncated:** false
- **body characters:** 11165